Reply to Comment

"...whether living, breathing, feeling beings have rights and can be enslaved simply because they happen to not have been born human."

Jokes aside, I assume supporters of this move would sit to the left of the political spectrum... a side which is vocally opposed to discrimination of any kind. It's easy for me to say (and wholeheartedly believe) that "All humans, regardless of race, creed, sexual preference, gender, etc should be treated equally".

It's not so easy to say the same about 'anything that wasn't born human'. Should horses and sheep have the same rights as, say, flies and cockroaches? What about pet rats - how do we distinguish these from vermin? Do we deem some rats more worthy of protection than other rats? Or do we protect them all and let the world become overrun? Do we free enslaved whales, but continue slavery of pack horses and water buffalo, because they're vital to human survival in the developing world?

Formally extending basic civil rights to all "living, breathing, feeling beings" would first involve determining an animal's worth based on things like species, perceived intelligence and social status - which is a level of discrimination and bigotry that no self-respecting lefty would engage in. I'd really like to know what kind of end game PETA and their ilk are hoping for. I get the feeling they maybe haven't thought this through.

(And yes, I am aware I may have thought this through a little too much. :p)